Mozilla’s 18-month effort to market without Facebook(digiday.com)
digiday.com
Mozilla’s 18-month effort to market without Facebook
https://digiday.com/marketing/after-mozilla-stopped-spending-on-facebook-the-company-increased-its-focus-on-offline-marketing/
193 comments
>Local businesses use Facebook relentlessly because, lots of times, it actually works to get people in the door or calling your number. Small businesses almost have to use its ad platform (in my opinion). I don't think local businesses can afford to look away from a top performer like this.
Anecdotally, based on my experience working with over 250 local businesses across the business spectrum, this doesn't reflect reality. A very small percentage of my clients "actively" use "organic" Facebook, an even smaller percentage use their ad platform (much higher usage of Google Ads). The ones that do (buy FB ads), typically do so through local "media company" who tack on their own fees, which in turn makes it a poor investment. I can count on one hand (out of hundreds) the number of our clients who effectively use Facebook. In fact, in the last couple of years, the number of businesses forgoing a "real website" and choosing Facebook (a common theme just a few years ago) has basically disappeared.
Anecdotally, based on my experience working with over 250 local businesses across the business spectrum, this doesn't reflect reality. A very small percentage of my clients "actively" use "organic" Facebook, an even smaller percentage use their ad platform (much higher usage of Google Ads). The ones that do (buy FB ads), typically do so through local "media company" who tack on their own fees, which in turn makes it a poor investment. I can count on one hand (out of hundreds) the number of our clients who effectively use Facebook. In fact, in the last couple of years, the number of businesses forgoing a "real website" and choosing Facebook (a common theme just a few years ago) has basically disappeared.
Can confirm. I used to work for a large media companies, and the consensus in our area is that Facebook used to be a primary channel in the past, but now it's a secondary engagement channel (behind Instagram and Twitter), and a secondary organic source (much less people is using it to find businesses). It's going down in all metrics.
The only businesses still relying on Facebook are event-based: concerts, parties, exhibitions, etc. Because they use FB Events. But even Instagram is taking over in that area.
Other than that, Facebook business pages are just becoming a place for marketing to dump stuff.
The only businesses still relying on Facebook are event-based: concerts, parties, exhibitions, etc. Because they use FB Events. But even Instagram is taking over in that area.
Other than that, Facebook business pages are just becoming a place for marketing to dump stuff.
You know FB owns Instagram though right? Why do they care if you spend money there or on FB proper?
Youre right, but for an advertiser it's important to know where to spend the money. From their perspective FB and Insta are not of equal value.
> You know FB owns Instagram though right? Why do they care if you spend money there or on FB proper?
Because the audiences are different?
Because the audiences are different?
I don't follow.
The audiences for Starbucks Latte and Cappuccino are different. Starbucks is indifferent whether you buy one or the other though.
The audiences for Starbucks Latte and Cappuccino are different. Starbucks is indifferent whether you buy one or the other though.
Folks... This is the most confusing thread I ever participated.
In my post I just mentioned which beverage my customers prefer, I never implied that Starbucks is closing or should close...
In my post I just mentioned which beverage my customers prefer, I never implied that Starbucks is closing or should close...
Folks are confusing Facebook (the product) with Facebook (the company).
Facebook (the product) is an absolute dumpster fire that is primarily used to spread propaganda that Facebook (the company) is unable and unwilling to stop.
Facebook (the company) is doing just fine, because they quickly realized social media sites are basically dating sites, where each new age cohort attaches to a different one. That means Facebook (the product) can indeed be awful and not affect the company much since all the users just moved to Instagram.
Facebook (the product) is an absolute dumpster fire that is primarily used to spread propaganda that Facebook (the company) is unable and unwilling to stop.
Facebook (the company) is doing just fine, because they quickly realized social media sites are basically dating sites, where each new age cohort attaches to a different one. That means Facebook (the product) can indeed be awful and not affect the company much since all the users just moved to Instagram.
Welcome to HN. :)
A better analogy would be Pizza Hut or Taco Bell ... They absolutely market both and some share space, that doesn't mean they each respectively don't care where the spend goes. If people are buying from Taco Bell, the Pizza Hut a block away may or may not shut down, and spending efforts will reflect those differences.
Ok that highlights the misunderstanding.
My analogy would be that Yum Brands doesn't care whether you visit Taco Bell or Pizza Hut. In the same way Facebook (inc) doesn't care whether you visit Facebook or Instagram.
My analogy would be that Yum Brands doesn't care whether you visit Taco Bell or Pizza Hut. In the same way Facebook (inc) doesn't care whether you visit Facebook or Instagram.
But, the marketers hired specifically for Facebook do care if you're going to Instagram more since it endangers[1] their product... Facebook Inc cares because one of it's branches is less worth in investing in but is happy the money you're spending is still within their product universe.
I think that you're being a bit over simplistic, there is a lot of decision making based around company component performance, poor sales number within the Facebook native platform may influence more money being redirected to support Instagram which might end up as a personnel cut in an extreme circumstance.
1. Reeeeeally loosely defined, since AFAICT Facebook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I think that you're being a bit over simplistic, there is a lot of decision making based around company component performance, poor sales number within the Facebook native platform may influence more money being redirected to support Instagram which might end up as a personnel cut in an extreme circumstance.
1. Reeeeeally loosely defined, since AFAICT Facebook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
> 1. Reeeeeally loosely defined, since AFAICT Facebook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I have an interesting approach. Maybe it falls flat on its face, but maybe it could work.
Create a "liberally themed" Facebook clone and onboard a bunch of people during the run up to the election. Give them tooling under the guise of campaigning, but also get them to use Facebook like features.
Ban any conservative thought or commentary. It's harsh, it's undemocratic, but it plays into the attack. Especially if you can drum up press coverage on Fox News.
Hypothetically, a polarized platform could create a stir. Maybe liberals on Facebook get interested. Maybe it leads to a small migration. This furthers the right-leaning polarizarion of Facebook's userbase, causing more liberals to flee. Thermal runaway.
This "Facebook is for Republicans" narrative is aided by the recent rumors that Zuckerburg has been meeting with Republican leaders about campaign advertising.
If you completely brain drain Facebook of the liberal demographic and make it skew far right, are the engineers, predominantly liberals, going to continue to be excited coming to work to build that product?
I think it's an interesting approach. It's far-fetched and kind of sneaky, but I'd love to see something like this attempted.
It would prove a new vector of attack for entering the social space. Something that even Instagram might be vulnerable to.
I have an interesting approach. Maybe it falls flat on its face, but maybe it could work.
Create a "liberally themed" Facebook clone and onboard a bunch of people during the run up to the election. Give them tooling under the guise of campaigning, but also get them to use Facebook like features.
Ban any conservative thought or commentary. It's harsh, it's undemocratic, but it plays into the attack. Especially if you can drum up press coverage on Fox News.
Hypothetically, a polarized platform could create a stir. Maybe liberals on Facebook get interested. Maybe it leads to a small migration. This furthers the right-leaning polarizarion of Facebook's userbase, causing more liberals to flee. Thermal runaway.
This "Facebook is for Republicans" narrative is aided by the recent rumors that Zuckerburg has been meeting with Republican leaders about campaign advertising.
If you completely brain drain Facebook of the liberal demographic and make it skew far right, are the engineers, predominantly liberals, going to continue to be excited coming to work to build that product?
I think it's an interesting approach. It's far-fetched and kind of sneaky, but I'd love to see something like this attempted.
It would prove a new vector of attack for entering the social space. Something that even Instagram might be vulnerable to.
Do it.. and good luck to you with that.
Possibly, I'm unsure of their executive structure or internal culture, it could go either way.
[deleted]
I don't think FB cares, but if you are the one spending your own money, you probably care an awful lot.
Yes, but the point op seemed to be making was that FB inc was in trouble because now instagram is the #1 choice instead of Facebook. This makes no sense - it all goes to the same bank account
> the point op seemed to be making
Wait, are you talking about me?
In my post I don't even hint at anything even close to that, I don't have any bias against Facebook, the company or the website. I'm not even talking about the future of Facebook AT ALL in the post. I'm just stating some metrics we gathered at my last workplace that might be helpful for people using social media.
Are you sure you're not projecting, or being over-defensive?
Wait, are you talking about me?
In my post I don't even hint at anything even close to that, I don't have any bias against Facebook, the company or the website. I'm not even talking about the future of Facebook AT ALL in the post. I'm just stating some metrics we gathered at my last workplace that might be helpful for people using social media.
Are you sure you're not projecting, or being over-defensive?
[deleted]
The ones that do (buy FB ads), typically do so through local "media company" who tack on their own fees, which in turn makes it a poor investment. I can count on one hand (out of hundreds) the number of our clients who effectively use Facebook.
That seems less an indictment of the performance Facebook ads, and more of an indictment of local Facebook ads consultants. As an experienced marketer, I can tell you that in most niches, ROAS from Facebook ads done correctly vastly outperforms that of AdWords ads. AdWords tends to deliver higher quality traffic, but at a CPC that is so much higher than Facebook that it makes Facebook’s lower quality traffic the better buy.
That seems less an indictment of the performance Facebook ads, and more of an indictment of local Facebook ads consultants. As an experienced marketer, I can tell you that in most niches, ROAS from Facebook ads done correctly vastly outperforms that of AdWords ads. AdWords tends to deliver higher quality traffic, but at a CPC that is so much higher than Facebook that it makes Facebook’s lower quality traffic the better buy.
A quick Google search shows that your anecdote, doesn't match the broader statistics...
https://www.investopedia.com/news/facebook-google-digital-ad...
Between Facebook and Google. Facebook has about 34% of the ad spend (36.2 + 19.2)/19.3.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/facebook-google-digital-ad...
Between Facebook and Google. Facebook has about 34% of the ad spend (36.2 + 19.2)/19.3.
I believe that's for Facebook Inc. and includes Instagram.
> Anecdotally, based on my experience working with over 250 local businesses across the business spectrum, this doesn't reflect reality.
Have to chime in here. I run a small brick and motor business with a membership model (climbing gym).
FB/Insta are paramount to our marketing and communication. Like the parent comment said, people like to say they don't use Facebook/Insta but that doesn't seem to be true at all.
Our ad budget on FB is an easy choice and is the only method of adverts that have given us any sort of consistent return. Groupon can get people in the door as well, but then you need to convert them directly with strong sales. It's good, but hard.
Organic FB/Insta are also the best way for us to communicate with our members/community about events, specials and closures. People check these platforms all the time. I believe these work so well for us because of the visual aspect of our business. If we were more informational, perhaps email would be a better tool.
I fantasize about not using Facebook properties, but it would come at a tremendous cost to the business and our community.
Have to chime in here. I run a small brick and motor business with a membership model (climbing gym).
FB/Insta are paramount to our marketing and communication. Like the parent comment said, people like to say they don't use Facebook/Insta but that doesn't seem to be true at all.
Our ad budget on FB is an easy choice and is the only method of adverts that have given us any sort of consistent return. Groupon can get people in the door as well, but then you need to convert them directly with strong sales. It's good, but hard.
Organic FB/Insta are also the best way for us to communicate with our members/community about events, specials and closures. People check these platforms all the time. I believe these work so well for us because of the visual aspect of our business. If we were more informational, perhaps email would be a better tool.
I fantasize about not using Facebook properties, but it would come at a tremendous cost to the business and our community.
It completely depends on the target demographic. For escape rooms, for example (mentioned in the above post), everyone is going to look up reviews on Facebook before buying tickets.
Not so sure that's true - most of the people I know look on Google/Maps for reviews now rather than trusting FB (or Yelp). It's probably demographic and market dependent.
I dunno, FB business pages seem to be really flaky. I'm just myself but I'd do a cursory check of google reviews and call it at that.
Facebook has reviews? That's news to me.
It can depend on the business, I think. I've been working on starting a business in the beauty & wellness industry, and every single wellness spa owner I've talked to has told me that social media advertising is basically a joke and that, while it will bring in some people, it doesn't compare to old school word-of-mouth, visibility, coupons, local magazine ads, etc.
On the other hand, my family's bookshop relies a lot on social media to get the word out. I suspect social media is more important for businesses that aren't viewed as necessities or are competing with convenience. (people tend to view wellness, beauty, anti-aging, facials, etc., as necessities if they depend on them regularly even though they aren't true necessities, which is why such industries tend to fare well even during recessions)
This probably isn't all Facebook's doing, but just the changing nature of how people get their information. Before Facebook, it was TV ads and ads in the newspaper, but nobody viewed those platforms as being nefarious. Now people are on the internet and watching cable less and less, so something's got to take the place of TV ads.
On the other hand, my family's bookshop relies a lot on social media to get the word out. I suspect social media is more important for businesses that aren't viewed as necessities or are competing with convenience. (people tend to view wellness, beauty, anti-aging, facials, etc., as necessities if they depend on them regularly even though they aren't true necessities, which is why such industries tend to fare well even during recessions)
This probably isn't all Facebook's doing, but just the changing nature of how people get their information. Before Facebook, it was TV ads and ads in the newspaper, but nobody viewed those platforms as being nefarious. Now people are on the internet and watching cable less and less, so something's got to take the place of TV ads.
> it doesn't compare to old school word-of-mouth, visibility, coupons, local magazine ads, etc.
This matches my experience working for small biz owners as well. It's funny, years ago we (techies) all told these business owners what a waste "traditional" advertising was. "Shift your print/radio/tv ad budgets to digital" we said, "it's trackable" we said, and now it's shifting back as digital ads are not returning the same value thanks to ...very accurate tracking. Meanwhile, local radio was destroyed and rebuilt, local print is also currently rebuilding (not quite there yet) and TV is becoming more affordable as they have to now compete with digital.
This matches my experience working for small biz owners as well. It's funny, years ago we (techies) all told these business owners what a waste "traditional" advertising was. "Shift your print/radio/tv ad budgets to digital" we said, "it's trackable" we said, and now it's shifting back as digital ads are not returning the same value thanks to ...very accurate tracking. Meanwhile, local radio was destroyed and rebuilt, local print is also currently rebuilding (not quite there yet) and TV is becoming more affordable as they have to now compete with digital.
Is it that social media is worse, or that returns on advertising for local businesses have always been bad but only when we could track them have we noticed?
We (a local micro-business) tried tracking our print adverts by including coupons and found nearly the only people using them were current customers.
Direct word-of-mouth was by far our most successful advertising (either from customers, or staff handing out leaflets in the street).
We (a local micro-business) tried tracking our print adverts by including coupons and found nearly the only people using them were current customers.
Direct word-of-mouth was by far our most successful advertising (either from customers, or staff handing out leaflets in the street).
> Is it that social media is worse, or that returns on advertising for local businesses have always been bad but only when we could track them have we noticed?
IMHO the latter. Returns were and are always terrible, with occasional "home runs" that then get parroted by every marketing guru as an example of how powerful social marketing campaigns can be. But of course, your plumbing business, or accounting firm doesn't have the same business model, market or customers as said example.
My point is that social media is no worse, or better than traditional marketing, it's just that, we can prove it's terrible with data. Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is.
IMHO the latter. Returns were and are always terrible, with occasional "home runs" that then get parroted by every marketing guru as an example of how powerful social marketing campaigns can be. But of course, your plumbing business, or accounting firm doesn't have the same business model, market or customers as said example.
My point is that social media is no worse, or better than traditional marketing, it's just that, we can prove it's terrible with data. Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is.
> Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is.
Well, it's just advertising that's terrible. Businesses can spend their money in lots of different ways. If advertising is understood to not be effective, perhaps we'll see more investment in things like wages and product quality, which, unlike advertising, deliver real social value.
Well, it's just advertising that's terrible. Businesses can spend their money in lots of different ways. If advertising is understood to not be effective, perhaps we'll see more investment in things like wages and product quality, which, unlike advertising, deliver real social value.
It all depends how local you are and how transactional the ad is. I did some marketing as a part-time thing for a private school. The online platforms were very hit or miss in terms of attracting people, and tended to be expensive.
We found that:
- Our market was too niche and local for adwords to be super effective. We basically didn't have enough volume with productive keywords to make it work, and broadening the keywords resulted in alot of spend for junk results. It did pull in some people though.
- Facebook, Instagram and Bing ads were useless.
- Facebook and Instagram content was shared by the community and generated conversions for events. They didn't make a dent in new admissions/tours.
- Many people saw and were were excited by Waze ads, but no new folks were attracted to it, and existing people used it as a lazy way to navigate to school/church. It was interesting though, I literally had people coming up to me to tell me how cool Waze was, which was surprising.
- Newspaper ads were expensive, but generated 5x more response than all of the other channels.
- Signs, lawn-signs and flyers were expensive in terms of labor, but 2x more response than newspaper.
We found that:
- Our market was too niche and local for adwords to be super effective. We basically didn't have enough volume with productive keywords to make it work, and broadening the keywords resulted in alot of spend for junk results. It did pull in some people though.
- Facebook, Instagram and Bing ads were useless.
- Facebook and Instagram content was shared by the community and generated conversions for events. They didn't make a dent in new admissions/tours.
- Many people saw and were were excited by Waze ads, but no new folks were attracted to it, and existing people used it as a lazy way to navigate to school/church. It was interesting though, I literally had people coming up to me to tell me how cool Waze was, which was surprising.
- Newspaper ads were expensive, but generated 5x more response than all of the other channels.
- Signs, lawn-signs and flyers were expensive in terms of labor, but 2x more response than newspaper.
Facebook reminds me a lot of AOL in this regard that it is the internet for most people: in the early internet AOL was the internet for the casual user: someone who wanted to maybe check some messages, check the news on a few sites, and check in on a few groups. The same type of user now prefers Facebook to be their portal to the internet because in their view why not have it all in one place? The rest of the internet is confusing. There's viruses and all these scary things out there! And I won't know how to find anything! All my friends are here already, why would I go anywhere else? I know most of the younger generation doesn't think like this, but then again Facebook isn't a young person's platform anymore. I would almost certainly prefer that those small businesses had their own website that I could visit, but I know most people don't think like that, and the business itself doesn't want to pay some random dev shop whatever fee to develop and run it when they can just post it on facebook and get 80% of the benefit.
> When I ran an escape room business, my fill-rate on weekends was typically dependent on whether or not I was spending money on Facebook. Google ads were second.
It's funny because I was going to comment on that about the escape room of my SO and about how Facebook in her case was quite ineffective. I was taking care of her campaigns because she isn't tech savvy at all. I was spending 150$ a month on Facebook and the same amount on Google Adword, but we had a much better return on Google.
There wasn't much advertising for escape room on Facebook for our area either, so that may explain why. There's quite a bit of them on Google Ads, but we only have ads on Google Adword for now.
I'm not the best in advertising though and didn't spend that much time on it, so we could most probably optimize that quite a bit and maybe then Facebook could be better. We are exclusively on Google now and I did optimize it a bit to reach 4.75% CTR. I have an hard time tracking correctly the conversion with Resova (we are going to migrate out of them too, so I won't spend too much time on it either) so for now CTR is good enough.
It's funny because I was going to comment on that about the escape room of my SO and about how Facebook in her case was quite ineffective. I was taking care of her campaigns because she isn't tech savvy at all. I was spending 150$ a month on Facebook and the same amount on Google Adword, but we had a much better return on Google.
There wasn't much advertising for escape room on Facebook for our area either, so that may explain why. There's quite a bit of them on Google Ads, but we only have ads on Google Adword for now.
I'm not the best in advertising though and didn't spend that much time on it, so we could most probably optimize that quite a bit and maybe then Facebook could be better. We are exclusively on Google now and I did optimize it a bit to reach 4.75% CTR. I have an hard time tracking correctly the conversion with Resova (we are going to migrate out of them too, so I won't spend too much time on it either) so for now CTR is good enough.
This raises an interesting question for me: how do people find real-life things on the internet? If I want to find an escape room near me, I'll do a web search, or possibly open Google Maps on my phone and search for it. It wouldn't even occur to me to use Facebook for this (granted, I've been off FB for a year now, with an account open just for event invitations, so I may not be typical). Do people actually type searches to find things off-internet into FB's search box?
Or is the advertising "discovery" more organic, in that escape room ads are just showing up in people's FB timeline or alongside unrelated Google searches (or on sites that display Google ads), and people think "oh, neat, I like escape rooms, I should try this one"?
Or is the advertising "discovery" more organic, in that escape room ads are just showing up in people's FB timeline or alongside unrelated Google searches (or on sites that display Google ads), and people think "oh, neat, I like escape rooms, I should try this one"?
> how do people find real-life things on the internet?
Originally I was planning to put them all on Facebook because I was expecting our market to be there (young adult who want to do something with friends). I was only taking ads on Google because even with the exact name, the result was too far. I was planning to remove it but as the CPC was much lower than on Facebook, I kept it with a few dollars per day.
> I'll do a web search, or possibly open Google Maps on my phone and search for it.
That what seems to be happening. Google Maps is one of our best source of conversion. During the first 12 months my SO asked most people where they found the escape room and a majority were from Google Maps. On Google My Business their stats show that in the past 30 days it was displayed 20k times, which is quite good. The CTR isn't amazing but it's still something and the number of calls is actually not too bad considering that I don't expect most people to use the call button of Google Maps to book.
I'll probably try to pay for ads on Google Maps and Waze soon.
Originally I was planning to put them all on Facebook because I was expecting our market to be there (young adult who want to do something with friends). I was only taking ads on Google because even with the exact name, the result was too far. I was planning to remove it but as the CPC was much lower than on Facebook, I kept it with a few dollars per day.
> I'll do a web search, or possibly open Google Maps on my phone and search for it.
That what seems to be happening. Google Maps is one of our best source of conversion. During the first 12 months my SO asked most people where they found the escape room and a majority were from Google Maps. On Google My Business their stats show that in the past 30 days it was displayed 20k times, which is quite good. The CTR isn't amazing but it's still something and the number of calls is actually not too bad considering that I don't expect most people to use the call button of Google Maps to book.
I'll probably try to pay for ads on Google Maps and Waze soon.
I have similar experiences with my theater troupe. It's very different from trying to market a national or global scale product. The market is small and hyper-local: people won't travel far for it, and only a small percentage of the community want it. They exist, but connecting with them is difficult without blanketing the area.
Facebook serves the same niche as the local newspaper used to. Those newspapers are disappearing, and people pay little attention where they do. Everybody reads Facebook. (If the "kids" have moved away from it, well, they're not really our target market anyway.)
Facebook serves the same niche as the local newspaper used to. Those newspapers are disappearing, and people pay little attention where they do. Everybody reads Facebook. (If the "kids" have moved away from it, well, they're not really our target market anyway.)
> Everybody reads Facebook.
No they don't. Far from it.
> Those newspapers are disappearing, and people pay little attention where they do.
Local newspapers are coming back. There are at least three glossy free newspapers where I live (published weekly or monthly) that are packed full of local advertising and local news stories, local identity profiles, etc.
No they don't. Far from it.
> Those newspapers are disappearing, and people pay little attention where they do.
Local newspapers are coming back. There are at least three glossy free newspapers where I live (published weekly or monthly) that are packed full of local advertising and local news stories, local identity profiles, etc.
>No they don't. Far from it.
That's technically correct but some 1.6 billion active daily users is kind of a big deal. "Everybody Uses facebook" is about as close accurate as you're going to get for an "Everybody does X" claim this side of "eats".
That's technically correct but some 1.6 billion active daily users is kind of a big deal. "Everybody Uses facebook" is about as close accurate as you're going to get for an "Everybody does X" claim this side of "eats".
I’m in my mid thirties. I work with a teen program. To get in touch with them I have to use Instagram or Snapchat. All of my friends that are my current age or older. They are all still on Facebook posting memes and political rants. I think it still makes sense to target Facebook. They have the larger share of the 30+ crowd that most businesses see as their target audience.
We should note that Instagram is owned by Facebook and Facebook Ads is the tool that you typically use to create and manage ads on both networks.
> Everyone likes to say they don't use Facebook, but they do. Or at least 10 people they know do.
I can confirm there are certainly people who don't use Facebook. I'm one of them and don't have any regrets dropping the platform years ago. It's just a boomer-meme-filled wasteland now.
I can confirm there are certainly people who don't use Facebook. I'm one of them and don't have any regrets dropping the platform years ago. It's just a boomer-meme-filled wasteland now.
Individuals don’t need Facebook. Once people realize that, businesses won’t need them either.
Facebook is a really great platform for getting clicks and likes. But most traffic is fake or garbage.
Locally things look a little better as long as you aren’t in a metro that is dominated with bogus traffic. Works great for small business outside of major metro areas.
Locally things look a little better as long as you aren’t in a metro that is dominated with bogus traffic. Works great for small business outside of major metro areas.
There's having Facebook and then there's using Facebook. I think most people who say they don't use Facebook still maintain an account for things that require it.
Nothing 'requires' Facebook. Absolutely nothing. Anything that you can do through Facebook can be done through another channel, including direct contact with the other party.
My mom came to visit me one time and forgot to tell the mom of one of the kids she was tutoring the week before that she would be out of town and she didn’t have her number. The mom was from my hometown and I knew her from high school. We were Facebook friends but I didn’t have her number either. I sent her message on messenger and she responded immediately.
Facebook Messenger is like the ultimate opt in for contacts. People you don’t know at all get filtered when trying to contact you, but people you know tangentially or see once every few years are still reachable. I would have no reason to have this person’s number.
There are plenty of people that I might contact about something but I wouldn’t have their number.
I was also planning a surprise for my wife’s birthday and coordinating for her to have a girl’s night out with her friends. I wouldn’t have her friends numbers, but I was able to message them.
Facebook Messenger is like the ultimate opt in for contacts. People you don’t know at all get filtered when trying to contact you, but people you know tangentially or see once every few years are still reachable. I would have no reason to have this person’s number.
There are plenty of people that I might contact about something but I wouldn’t have their number.
I was also planning a surprise for my wife’s birthday and coordinating for her to have a girl’s night out with her friends. I wouldn’t have her friends numbers, but I was able to message them.
The times I've found someone's identified belongings and successfully returned them, it was through Facebook.
[deleted]
Makes sense, as Facebook’s interface is designed just like an escape room.
So then how did these types of businesses survive pre-facebook?
So long ago, in the dark days before 1991, bloggers would send their blog posts to centralized publishers who would collect all of these posts together and print them on big sheets of paper every morning that they would bundle together and sell for a nominal fee to the blogers' followers.
Because the subscribers weren't willing to pay the full cost of producing these papers, the publishers would let local business owners pay them to include their own blog posts advertising their business. The people reading these papers each day would learn about local businesses and events from these advertisements.
Because the subscribers weren't willing to pay the full cost of producing these papers, the publishers would let local business owners pay them to include their own blog posts advertising their business. The people reading these papers each day would learn about local businesses and events from these advertisements.
Escape rooms were invitation-only back then, and most did not get out.
Were escape rooms even a thing pre-Facebook? They seem like a distinctly 21st century business to me.
> it’s unclear why Mozilla is fine with Google’s data practices but not Facebook’s as the company did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.
I often wonder the same.
And also:
Why there is an official Facebook container[1] but not an official Google container?[2]
Why a fresh install of Firefox sends multiple calls to Google, including services that track users such as Analytics?[3]
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-availab...
[2] there is a third party Google container at least https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...
[3] https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604...
I often wonder the same.
And also:
Why there is an official Facebook container[1] but not an official Google container?[2]
Why a fresh install of Firefox sends multiple calls to Google, including services that track users such as Analytics?[3]
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-availab...
[2] there is a third party Google container at least https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...
[3] https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604...
Mozilla revenue is still something like 90% from Google. The Yahoo deal did help, but they are still very dependent on Google for finance.
Historically Google has been a really close Mozilla partner, not only sponsoring search, but also developers.
Today, Mozillas relationship with Google is extremely complicated.
ZDNET had an article back in April [1], that somewhat sums up how the relationship soured, but doesn't really touch on why and how they are still intermingled.
> Google, including services that track users such as Analytics?
Mozilla has a special deal with Google, that does not allow Google to use that information as part of their greater analytics or sell it to 3rd parties, as per [2].
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14
Historically Google has been a really close Mozilla partner, not only sponsoring search, but also developers.
Today, Mozillas relationship with Google is extremely complicated.
ZDNET had an article back in April [1], that somewhat sums up how the relationship soured, but doesn't really touch on why and how they are still intermingled.
> Google, including services that track users such as Analytics?
Mozilla has a special deal with Google, that does not allow Google to use that information as part of their greater analytics or sell it to 3rd parties, as per [2].
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14
> Mozilla has a special deal with Google, that does not allow Google...
Sorry for being pedantic, as I'm sure this is what you intended anyway, but I do think its worthwhile pointing out explicitly: it does not contractually allow Google.
There are no technical restrictions in place; e.g. Google haven't provided Mozilla with an alternative analytics mechanism that consumes less data. All data is still sent by Mozilla to Google. They've just then promosed to do nothing with it.
A small but, I believe, notable distinction.
Sorry for being pedantic, as I'm sure this is what you intended anyway, but I do think its worthwhile pointing out explicitly: it does not contractually allow Google.
There are no technical restrictions in place; e.g. Google haven't provided Mozilla with an alternative analytics mechanism that consumes less data. All data is still sent by Mozilla to Google. They've just then promosed to do nothing with it.
A small but, I believe, notable distinction.
From a technical standpoint, there are data sharing settings in Google Analytics [1] letting you control how much analytics data is shared with Google. Maybe they wanted it as part of the contract and not just a setting?
[1] https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1011397
[1] https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1011397
I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me or if I'm misunderstanding you...
> data sharing settings in Google Analytics [1] letting you control how much analytics data is shared with Google.
It's in Google Analytics. It's all shared with Google. Or—more accurately—none of it is "shared" with Google, Google is just sharing some of it with you.
There may be settings allowing you to indicate your preference for what they will use for whatever internal purposes, but... Google have collected the data. There's no question of whether they receive it or not.
> data sharing settings in Google Analytics [1] letting you control how much analytics data is shared with Google.
It's in Google Analytics. It's all shared with Google. Or—more accurately—none of it is "shared" with Google, Google is just sharing some of it with you.
There may be settings allowing you to indicate your preference for what they will use for whatever internal purposes, but... Google have collected the data. There's no question of whether they receive it or not.
Storing things on a Google server isn't the same as sharing the data with Google for other purposes, for both technical and legal reasons.
This really depends on your trust model. Do you trust Google engineers to implement their own permissions correctly? Are you concerned about mistakes, or that they're entirely lawless?
Physical control means you can independently verify that no sharing is done, but it's not the only trust model.
This really depends on your trust model. Do you trust Google engineers to implement their own permissions correctly? Are you concerned about mistakes, or that they're entirely lawless?
Physical control means you can independently verify that no sharing is done, but it's not the only trust model.
Physical control is the only trust model with any kind of practical verifiability, so anything outside of that trust model is essentially blind trust.
This is obviously not a viable approach pragmatically (Mozilla must e.g. trust the hosting provider for their own data, distribution pipelines for their software, etc.), but these are all cases where reasonable precaution can be taken (signing, etc.). Google Analytics' APIs support no such measures.
> Are you concerned ... that they're entirely lawless?
This is a bit of a strawman / hyperbolic question. A company or its employees needn't be "entirely lawless" (whatever this extreme phrase even means), to be outside of regulatory compliance. And the latter is something Google are found to be on a very regular basis.
This is obviously not a viable approach pragmatically (Mozilla must e.g. trust the hosting provider for their own data, distribution pipelines for their software, etc.), but these are all cases where reasonable precaution can be taken (signing, etc.). Google Analytics' APIs support no such measures.
> Are you concerned ... that they're entirely lawless?
This is a bit of a strawman / hyperbolic question. A company or its employees needn't be "entirely lawless" (whatever this extreme phrase even means), to be outside of regulatory compliance. And the latter is something Google are found to be on a very regular basis.
What's an example of Google sharing customer data when their contract says they're not allowed to?
It worries me a lot that it seems like mozilla’s burn rate is pretty close to their income rate.
They aren’t operating like a charitable trust that accumulates money during good times and then lives off the residuals. Which means if they ever piss off google we’re kind of fucked.
They aren’t operating like a charitable trust that accumulates money during good times and then lives off the residuals. Which means if they ever piss off google we’re kind of fucked.
Maybe because Google has been mostly trustworthy and Facebook as not? AFAIK Google has never shared any user data. They've taken privacy seriously since day one. They do gather lots of data but they don't share it. Facebook on the other hand has been caught multiple times sharing anything and everything.
Google also has relatively good tools for controlling your data with myactivity. I think they have always been ahead of facebook with stuff like this.
Google is probably Mozilla biggest "customer" so I'm not surprised if Mozilla is ok with whatever Google is doing.
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-firefox-search-deal-gives-m...
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-firefox-search-deal-gives-m...
Yes they pretend to be the champions of Privacy and Open Web...
Okay then use the web browser developed by Google.
Or use a Blink based web browser whose development is steered by Google.
Or use a Blink based web browser whose development is steered by Google.
Not sure how this counters my point at all. Mozilla wants to eat his cake (we are the champions of Privacy) and have it (yes the most Privacy destroying corporation on Earth is funding us so we never mention them anywhere as if they are not involved in what we do).
Completely, utterly hypocritical. I'm sorry if you are blind to it.
Completely, utterly hypocritical. I'm sorry if you are blind to it.
Unfortunately it costs a lot of money to develop a modern browser and your only alternative browser developer which isn't an ad company, isn't dependent on ad company money and didn't base its browser on one developed by an ad company is Apple.
If you want a browser that's free of all of that, there's always lynx.
Of course, you have to give up a few things to use it...
Of course, you have to give up a few things to use it...
[deleted]
There's the middle ground of using Firefox and wishing the Mozilla Corporation wasn't full of hypocrites.
Or there's the actual middle ground of using Firefox and trying to get more information on why something is the way it is and understanding what's going when something looks wrong to you rather than making assumptions and using that to label people hypocrites.
If you know something, feel free to say so. Otherwise you're just one more person on the internet spreading FUD instead of knowledge about one more company. We have enough of that already, don't we?
If you know something, feel free to say so. Otherwise you're just one more person on the internet spreading FUD instead of knowledge about one more company. We have enough of that already, don't we?
Or use Pale Moon, where yes, the devs can be difficult, but they're also right more often than not.
Can anyone elaborate on [3] or at least copypaste it?
Twitter links seem to rarely work without having the app on mobile, it's disgustingly blatant dark pattern stuff.
Twitter links seem to rarely work without having the app on mobile, it's disgustingly blatant dark pattern stuff.
The most “amusing” part of that thread in my opinion is this one:
> The http://mozilla.org tab discussing the importance of Privacy loads in the background, bringing along with it the Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics. Hello, Google.
> The http://mozilla.org tab discussing the importance of Privacy loads in the background, bringing along with it the Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics. Hello, Google.
I suspect that says more about the state of frontend development today than about Mozillas privacy policy.
Anyway, I think Mozilla should address all these concerns ASAP.
Anyway, I think Mozilla should address all these concerns ASAP.
On desktop, if you have JS turned off, it throws up a page saying "We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter?"
If you click yes, it tries to set a cookie. If it can't set a cookie, it throws up a page saying "We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter?" etc.
If you click yes, it tries to set a cookie. If it can't set a cookie, it throws up a page saying "We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter?" etc.
Try this unrolled version:
https://threader.app/thread/1165858896176660480
https://threader.app/thread/1165858896176660480
OMG that is so much better than the original. Why don't people just write actual blog posts! It makes so much more sense than stringing together 20 tweets!
Because, as a business it’s very very hard to have values, if you don’t want to go bankrupt.
Never trust businesses talking about values, or believe they are out there to protect you. Some of them are better than other for sure, but at the core companies don’t have values they stand for - they have hobbies, that they like to use to get more publicity.
Never trust businesses talking about values, or believe they are out there to protect you. Some of them are better than other for sure, but at the core companies don’t have values they stand for - they have hobbies, that they like to use to get more publicity.
Actually it's very easy for a business to have values, those values just have to be those of the customer.
Note that "customer" doesn't mean "user," the customer is the person that pays you money. Sometimes user and customer is one in the same, but with regards to free (as in no purchase by the end user) software and services the customer potentially has a very different set of values than the user.
Note that "customer" doesn't mean "user," the customer is the person that pays you money. Sometimes user and customer is one in the same, but with regards to free (as in no purchase by the end user) software and services the customer potentially has a very different set of values than the user.
Their relationship goes as deep as Firefox bringing Google as the default search engine. I presume Google pays some non-negligible amount of money for that, so Mozilla execs are tied to Google. Having one big source of income implies pivoting your whole strategy on virtually anything at their command because without them, you can kiss goodbye the "between $20 million and $100 million" marketing budget.
Google hasn't had a Cambridge Analytica.
It’s pretty simple. Mozilla’s employees are fiercely liberal. For example, a small group of vocal employees managed to oust former CEO Brendan Eich over a tiny donation to a conservative political cause he had made many years before he became CEO. If you have a conservative bone in your body, you are not welcome on the Mozilla campus.
So they don’t object to Facebook’s data privacy practices. They object to Facebook’s media-perceived role in Trump’s election. The reality is that if they applied the standard they are using to exclude Facebook from their advertising plan in a non-hypocritical way, they would quickly run out of places to advertise online. Most major online media outlets, including Google, have data practices that actual privacy activists consider to be abhorrent. Their policy isn’t about privacy - it’s about politics.
So they don’t object to Facebook’s data privacy practices. They object to Facebook’s media-perceived role in Trump’s election. The reality is that if they applied the standard they are using to exclude Facebook from their advertising plan in a non-hypocritical way, they would quickly run out of places to advertise online. Most major online media outlets, including Google, have data practices that actual privacy activists consider to be abhorrent. Their policy isn’t about privacy - it’s about politics.
Hi, Brendan Eich here. I was not ousted from Mozilla as "a conservative" and no one who might fit that label at Mozilla was forced out of their job or otherwise mistreated, either -- as far as I know. It may be that Mozilla-the-Corporation (vs. the Foundation) has become more inclined to ideological litmus tests, but that was not the issue for me in 2014. Please do not make stuff up.
The public narrative was that you were pressured to resign because some employees were upset that you had made a donation to an initiative opposing gay marriage. I did not “make that up” - it was all over the Internet. I won’t bother posting all the links here, but a simple Google search reveals hundreds of articles all saying that my summation in my original comment is dead-on accurate.
So please do not accuse me of “making stuff up”. I was simply repeating what literally every article on this matter says. If the entire media got that wrong, then fine. Ultimately only you know why you left. But I “made up” nothing.
So please do not accuse me of “making stuff up”. I was simply repeating what literally every article on this matter says. If the entire media got that wrong, then fine. Ultimately only you know why you left. But I “made up” nothing.
Your words: “ If you have a conservative bone in your body, you are not welcome on the Mozilla campus.” This is wholly made up, no evidence for it as far as I can tell. Please cite anything you can adduce on this point. My exit is not on its face evidence supporting your statement. If things have changed since I left, let me know.
You also seem to have assumed that the “employees” who called for my resignation reported to me. Not so: they all worked for the smaller Mozilla Foundation, which has arms-length structure as parent non-profit to the for-profit Mozilla Corporation of which I was CEO.
You also seem to have assumed that the “employees” who called for my resignation reported to me. Not so: they all worked for the smaller Mozilla Foundation, which has arms-length structure as parent non-profit to the for-profit Mozilla Corporation of which I was CEO.
This is wholly made up, no evidence for it as far as I can tell.
Again, that’s not “made up”. It’s a logical conclusion based upon the facts of what happened. You are saying that the facts of your case are not evidence that this could possibly happen to anyone else at that organization in the future. I hope you’re right. But the reality is that if they pushed one person out because of ideological differences, it is quite probable that it has happened to others and will continue to happen.
The bottom line is this: You made a minor donation to a conservative political cause years before you became CEO. That ultimately led to your departure. I don’t think even you would dispute either of those facts. This pretty well supports the conclusion that anyone with even mildly conservative views is not welcome there. I’m not sure how else anyone would interpret that. You seem to have a much more charitable interpretation of it than the facts support, but that doesn’t mean that people interpreting what happened in the most obvious way are “making up” that interpretation.
Again, that’s not “made up”. It’s a logical conclusion based upon the facts of what happened. You are saying that the facts of your case are not evidence that this could possibly happen to anyone else at that organization in the future. I hope you’re right. But the reality is that if they pushed one person out because of ideological differences, it is quite probable that it has happened to others and will continue to happen.
The bottom line is this: You made a minor donation to a conservative political cause years before you became CEO. That ultimately led to your departure. I don’t think even you would dispute either of those facts. This pretty well supports the conclusion that anyone with even mildly conservative views is not welcome there. I’m not sure how else anyone would interpret that. You seem to have a much more charitable interpretation of it than the facts support, but that doesn’t mean that people interpreting what happened in the most obvious way are “making up” that interpretation.
"Logic" suggests Bayesian analysis but you're working with too few bits. When you make an absolute-sounding posterior claim based on thin or non-existent priors, you risk losing sound inference in favor of pushing a preferred conclusion.
I'm disputing your absolute-sounding "Mozilla’s employees are fiercely liberal". Even if you define "liberal" broadly, are they all? Really, no moderates or righties? As I happen to know some, and so do other people, you seem to be using hyperbole at best, if not making things up.
Also your absolute, unhedged "If you have a conservative bone in your body, you are not welcome on the Mozilla campus." Again, counterexamples are known personally to me and others on HN such as @roca. So instead of persuading, you're exaggerating for some reason (to divide and conquer, to get sympathy, it doesn't matter -- the exaggeration is the point and it blows back, assuming you are actually trying to persuade anyone; perhaps you are writing not to persuade?).
Mozilla would have trouble with state law if they actively fired or demoted anyone over past political acts, per California Labor Law 1101 and 1102. Let's agree that is not the case.
That leaves subtler biases. You could be right, especially after I left, that anyone who is known to be "on the right" (conservative is almost useless as a clear political term) would face subtler kinds of hostility, skepticism, pressure. You are probably right about executives, but that's true at a lot of places. Anyone pushing buttons by boosting Trump at lunch or water-cooler time, wearing a MAGA hat, etc., would run into complaints and escalations.
But at this point we are far from your absolute, unqualified assertions about "are fiercely liberal" and "not welcome". See what I mean?
P.S. See https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/04/fighting-media-narrativ... including all the comments. I'm not taking anyone's side there, but if it were as absolute and simple as you asserted, many righties would have quit too and we'd hear from them. If I missed such testimony, please link.
I'm disputing your absolute-sounding "Mozilla’s employees are fiercely liberal". Even if you define "liberal" broadly, are they all? Really, no moderates or righties? As I happen to know some, and so do other people, you seem to be using hyperbole at best, if not making things up.
Also your absolute, unhedged "If you have a conservative bone in your body, you are not welcome on the Mozilla campus." Again, counterexamples are known personally to me and others on HN such as @roca. So instead of persuading, you're exaggerating for some reason (to divide and conquer, to get sympathy, it doesn't matter -- the exaggeration is the point and it blows back, assuming you are actually trying to persuade anyone; perhaps you are writing not to persuade?).
Mozilla would have trouble with state law if they actively fired or demoted anyone over past political acts, per California Labor Law 1101 and 1102. Let's agree that is not the case.
That leaves subtler biases. You could be right, especially after I left, that anyone who is known to be "on the right" (conservative is almost useless as a clear political term) would face subtler kinds of hostility, skepticism, pressure. You are probably right about executives, but that's true at a lot of places. Anyone pushing buttons by boosting Trump at lunch or water-cooler time, wearing a MAGA hat, etc., would run into complaints and escalations.
But at this point we are far from your absolute, unqualified assertions about "are fiercely liberal" and "not welcome". See what I mean?
P.S. See https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/04/fighting-media-narrativ... including all the comments. I'm not taking anyone's side there, but if it were as absolute and simple as you asserted, many righties would have quit too and we'd hear from them. If I missed such testimony, please link.
But at this point we are far from your absolute, unqualified assertions about "are fiercely liberal" and "not welcome". See what I mean?
I probably should have hedged it to some degree, but I feel like you’re being pedantic. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. This was a comment on HN, not a research paper. I was making a generalization, perhaps one worded too broadly, but one that you seem to eventually concede to in the latter part of your last comment.
FWIW, I mentioned your case as an example because I think you suffered a terrible injustice. I can’t stand hypocrisy, and to have things like this being brought forth by people that belong to a party that calls itself the “party of tolerance” disgusts me in a way that I couldn’t fully describe in writing. I don’t even agree with your stance on the issue you donated to, but I think that incidents like yours have a chilling effect on free speech, and that isn’t good for anyone. Too much of this kind of thing happens across the board. I find it fascinating that you seem to be defending the other side in your situation, but I am sure you have your reasons.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I probably should have hedged it to some degree, but I feel like you’re being pedantic. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. This was a comment on HN, not a research paper. I was making a generalization, perhaps one worded too broadly, but one that you seem to eventually concede to in the latter part of your last comment.
FWIW, I mentioned your case as an example because I think you suffered a terrible injustice. I can’t stand hypocrisy, and to have things like this being brought forth by people that belong to a party that calls itself the “party of tolerance” disgusts me in a way that I couldn’t fully describe in writing. I don’t even agree with your stance on the issue you donated to, but I think that incidents like yours have a chilling effect on free speech, and that isn’t good for anyone. Too much of this kind of thing happens across the board. I find it fascinating that you seem to be defending the other side in your situation, but I am sure you have your reasons.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I think people not on board with “no one at or to the right of 2008-era Obama is allowed here” purgers need to stand their ground. If you agree then I hope you’ll avoid absolute declarations of the form you used. It concedes too much and lets too many (whatever their beliefs) off the hook. We can’t all hive off into our own left, right, and other forks of every project and do more with fewer people. We need unity behind common goods such as those that Mozilla originally pursued, which I am still working on with many at Brave.
> a small group of vocal employees managed to oust former CEO Brendan Eich over a tiny donation to a conservative political cause
Eich was kinda a moron and I don't think they realized that after he was onboard. IIRC, he saw no reason to move forward with the Firefox Quantum support and generally had some other bad software decisions.
I suspect the anti-gay stuff was more to justify a way to get rid of him and score some points in the process.
Eich was kinda a moron and I don't think they realized that after he was onboard. IIRC, he saw no reason to move forward with the Firefox Quantum support and generally had some other bad software decisions.
I suspect the anti-gay stuff was more to justify a way to get rid of him and score some points in the process.
As a former Mozilla distinguished engineer --- your comment is insulting, totally wrong and betrays your ignorance.
Not even Brendan's worst enemies have ever accused him of being a moron.
Brendan was a leading figure at Mozilla since the very beginning of the project. Everyone very well knew who he was.
I didn't agree with all of Brendan's decisions. For example I think we should have prioritized process separation higher than we did, and Brendan was partly responsible for deprioritizing that, which I viewed as a serious mistake. But Brendan made a lot more good decisions than bad ones and from that point of view, everyone I know was confident in him as CEO.
Engineers certainly weren't looking for an "excuse to get rid of him". I assume executives and the board weren't either, or they wouldn't have made him CEO just before the controversy exploded.
Not even Brendan's worst enemies have ever accused him of being a moron.
Brendan was a leading figure at Mozilla since the very beginning of the project. Everyone very well knew who he was.
I didn't agree with all of Brendan's decisions. For example I think we should have prioritized process separation higher than we did, and Brendan was partly responsible for deprioritizing that, which I viewed as a serious mistake. But Brendan made a lot more good decisions than bad ones and from that point of view, everyone I know was confident in him as CEO.
Engineers certainly weren't looking for an "excuse to get rid of him". I assume executives and the board weren't either, or they wouldn't have made him CEO just before the controversy exploded.
Firefox Quantum was started in fall 2016, more than two years after I left: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum.
Quantum (or part of it; much good work done in C++ code too) is based on Rust and Servo, projects for which I was sole executive sponsor from 2010 onward: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12224047.
It's fair to say Rust and Servo would not exist as such if I hadn't been at Mozilla.
I'm among the actual founders of mozilla.org, we started working on it in fall 1997. Earliest wayback snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/19981202152141/http://www.mozill...
Quantum (or part of it; much good work done in C++ code too) is based on Rust and Servo, projects for which I was sole executive sponsor from 2010 onward: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12224047.
It's fair to say Rust and Servo would not exist as such if I hadn't been at Mozilla.
I'm among the actual founders of mozilla.org, we started working on it in fall 1997. Earliest wayback snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/19981202152141/http://www.mozill...
Well now I feel like an ass. I apologize. That's what I get for just believing what I read in another HN comment somewhere without doing the research. The wayback link does take me back.
What other HN comment?
No, tu quoque is when someone defends entity A's bad actions by saying that entity B also does bad things.
The GP is not trying to defend Facebook here. Their argument is that Mozilla is not acting fully ethically, by seemingly treating Google specially. Therefore tu quoque does not apply. (Moreover, the argument is logically sound.)
The GP is not trying to defend Facebook here. Their argument is that Mozilla is not acting fully ethically, by seemingly treating Google specially. Therefore tu quoque does not apply. (Moreover, the argument is logically sound.)
No. The point isn't that Mozilla shouldn't worry about privacy issues regarding Facebook, it's that they should AND should worry about them regarding Google in a similar fashion.
[deleted]
Caesar represents Mozilla’s users being stabbed in the back by Brutus Mozilla, and the Google Analytics cookie that is downloaded upon installing Firefox is the dagger.
In my opinion advertising browser on facebook is absolutely useless. How many users do you think see an advert and install browser when they current one is for all their intents and purposes same. Mozilla needs to aim at technical people, who will install Firefox not only on their own devices, but also on devices of their relatives (or in case of administrators on devices of their users).
And only few technical people care about minuscule difference in performance anymore, so they need to advertise what Google, their main competitor, doesn't offer - privacy. Best way to advertise would be either tech news on articles related to privacy issues and possibly tech influencers who can properly explain privacy benefits.
Another way to strike favour with tech crowd would be eliminating bloat from Firefox (e.g. Pocket, still no idea why they bought them, as an extension it worked fine).
And only few technical people care about minuscule difference in performance anymore, so they need to advertise what Google, their main competitor, doesn't offer - privacy. Best way to advertise would be either tech news on articles related to privacy issues and possibly tech influencers who can properly explain privacy benefits.
Another way to strike favour with tech crowd would be eliminating bloat from Firefox (e.g. Pocket, still no idea why they bought them, as an extension it worked fine).
Given the changes google is making...
"Google is breaking ad blocking in Chrome, try a browser that works for you."
"Google is breaking ad blocking in Chrome, try a browser that works for you."
If you're talking about putting that in ads, then it becomes a chicken & egg problem - people who care about ad blocking won't see your ad because they already block them, people who don't won't care about Chrome breaking something they don't use.
Firefox's marketshare is pretty horrible - non-existence on mobile and very small on desktop and shrinking at 10% a year.
It is basically at Edge-levels of adoption on desktop:
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#monthly-2009...
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#monthly-2009...
Firefox on mobile is actually pretty good and more people should use it.
(At least on Android, on iOS it's just a skin on top of whatever engine apple forces down their throats).
(At least on Android, on iOS it's just a skin on top of whatever engine apple forces down their throats).
I started using Firefox Android a year ago and now I can't stand chrome and all the Ads!
Ublock origin on Firefox mobile is a godsend.
Ublock origin on Firefox mobile is a godsend.
Add on dark reader and the mobile experience is dramatically better. It's still a little clunky from a UI/UX standpoint, but still superior experience overall.
I'd describe the mobile UX as less optimized and more straightforward than Chrome. Definitely easier to tweak your privacy settings as well.
I find that firefox + ublock is still far slower than brave on android.
It isn't slower for me, and Firefox + uBlock Origin have the benefits of being FOSS (no for-profit making decisions behind the scenes) and having much better control over blocking.
Brave sometimes totally fails to block Outbrain-like junk at the bottom of articles, and that seems like it must be intentional.
Brave sometimes totally fails to block Outbrain-like junk at the bottom of articles, and that seems like it must be intentional.
I use FF exclusively on my laptop. Having FF on my phone syncs my tabs and history. This is amazingly useful. Use it 3-4 times a week.
If you enjoy FF I recommend signing up for their beta program. New versions come out every couple of weeks and tend to make noticeable random differences or feature enhancements.
If you enjoy FF I recommend signing up for their beta program. New versions come out every couple of weeks and tend to make noticeable random differences or feature enhancements.
I dropped chrome on Android a year ago, transitioning to Firefox Mobile. Was kinda uncomfortable for a few weeks, but now I like it more than I ever liked Chrome. I also switched to using DuckDuckGo recently on all my devices, and it's been pretty great!
In short: more people should be using Firefox and DDG.
In short: more people should be using Firefox and DDG.
Firefox on mobile still hasn't implemented something as basic as enlarged touch targets for buttons in webpages. Pressing the [-] button that is next to each comment of this site using Firefox is a nightmare compared to any other webkit browser.
I wouldn’t say that it’s a problem with the browser, rather the implementation of the site’s design. The browser could of course be helpful and increase the click target size to some minimum value, but it would just make the development complicated due to yet another quirk in how browsers implement the UI, especially in cases where you need a lot of small click targets.
Hmm, are you sure? Because I remember implementing that. Maybe it got disabled for some reason.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1247095 for why it's currently disabled, and you can toggle "ui.mouse.radius.enabled" in about:config and see whether the issues that led to this being turned off are actually relevant for your personal usage or not.
Firefox Focus is very fast, not sure if its out for ios.
I dont use it as a daily browser, but I do use it often with sites with obnoxious popups, or incognito sites I don't want to give info too.
Even most firefox communities agree FF on Android is hot pile of garbage in terms of performance, power usage, and scrolling. The rewritten FF preview is fixing some of that but it's obviously not GA yet.
It is not true, FF on Android is pretty great. I use it a lot every day. It actually syncs tabs and passwords better than Chrome (and without leaking them to Google without encryption)
> I use it a lot every day. It actually syncs tabs and passwords better than Chrome (and without leaking them to Google without encryption)
Has nothing to do with performance, but I agree - to be clear I use FF but that doesn't mean I have to justify/defend "it's slow" with other reasons I choose to use it.
> It is not true, FF on Android is pretty great.
https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/dzNTI91dH4nch-WEKzTkp_WWza8... https://greenspector.com/assets/img/articles/2018-11-19-navi... (Firefox Focus was on still on the WebKit base when that benchmark was done, not their own engine)
Even posts about how great it is have to contain qualifiers https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/97vqb2/firefox_for... "I know a lot of people complain about Firefox on Android... "es, the scrolling isn't as good as Chrome".
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/c2qovb/how_stable_... top comment " but it can have somewhat poor performance... But yeah, Android Firefox is actually being rewritten for that reason. " and only other comment "Yes you can sync. Performance is still abysmal. "
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bxr3yc/why_is_andr... "I've used Firefox, Firefox Beta, Firefox Focus, and Firefox Nightly. They're all absolutely glacial browsers on Android." top comment is basically what I said "Firefox Preview or fenix is a promising browser . It has modern superfast Ui . Better page loading time and benchmark scores . It is currently under development (that's why it's called preview ) ."
.
I could go on, these aren't cherry picked they are just going straight through searches and clicking top results. These aren't rare opinions, they score decently high on forums dedicated to discussing FF. The comments on the rewrite are the complete opposite, praising performance and fixing laggy scroll, but it's not done yet. This is a constant source of discussion.
If the current version of FF on Android didn't have issues they wouldn't be rewriting it.
Has nothing to do with performance, but I agree - to be clear I use FF but that doesn't mean I have to justify/defend "it's slow" with other reasons I choose to use it.
> It is not true, FF on Android is pretty great.
https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/dzNTI91dH4nch-WEKzTkp_WWza8... https://greenspector.com/assets/img/articles/2018-11-19-navi... (Firefox Focus was on still on the WebKit base when that benchmark was done, not their own engine)
Even posts about how great it is have to contain qualifiers https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/97vqb2/firefox_for... "I know a lot of people complain about Firefox on Android... "es, the scrolling isn't as good as Chrome".
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/c2qovb/how_stable_... top comment " but it can have somewhat poor performance... But yeah, Android Firefox is actually being rewritten for that reason. " and only other comment "Yes you can sync. Performance is still abysmal. "
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bxr3yc/why_is_andr... "I've used Firefox, Firefox Beta, Firefox Focus, and Firefox Nightly. They're all absolutely glacial browsers on Android." top comment is basically what I said "Firefox Preview or fenix is a promising browser . It has modern superfast Ui . Better page loading time and benchmark scores . It is currently under development (that's why it's called preview ) ."
.
I could go on, these aren't cherry picked they are just going straight through searches and clicking top results. These aren't rare opinions, they score decently high on forums dedicated to discussing FF. The comments on the rewrite are the complete opposite, praising performance and fixing laggy scroll, but it's not done yet. This is a constant source of discussion.
If the current version of FF on Android didn't have issues they wouldn't be rewriting it.
Firefox does not need to do everything better than Chrome to be great. It is a false presumption. It just has to do the job well and browsing easy, which it does. After overcoming initial unfamiliarity, I find it better suited for my regular workflow. And, of course, FF never tried to destroy my eyes like Chrome did: one day the wiseguys in Google decided that everything should be extreme WHITE [1]. First, when they had enabled it, you could reduce whiteness by turning on a hidden flag in preferences, but in the very next update, they removed said flag completely.
I read from my phone very often in the dark environment, and Chrome usage became excruciating even on the minimum screen brightness. So removing that option was a final straw for me, and I switched to FF on both mobile and desktop. And honestly, never looked back, learning to appreciate what I have with FF. I never noticed anything laggy about scrolls, and power usage on Android is about the same as Chrome (likely less, due to everything being NOT SO FREAKING WHITE!).
[1] https://support.google.com/chrome/forum/AAAAP1KN0B0rbZd_cEpW...
I read from my phone very often in the dark environment, and Chrome usage became excruciating even on the minimum screen brightness. So removing that option was a final straw for me, and I switched to FF on both mobile and desktop. And honestly, never looked back, learning to appreciate what I have with FF. I never noticed anything laggy about scrolls, and power usage on Android is about the same as Chrome (likely less, due to everything being NOT SO FREAKING WHITE!).
[1] https://support.google.com/chrome/forum/AAAAP1KN0B0rbZd_cEpW...
> Firefox does not need to do everything better than Chrome to be great.
Nope, but it doesn't need to be protected from criticism for coming dead last either.
Again, workflow and theming are completely irrelevant to anything I mentioned. "hot pile of garbage __in terms of performance, power usage, and scrolling__." (emphasis added). You're reading "someone said something bad about FF, I've got to say how it's better than Chrome!" instead of what was said. I then provided hard data to validate it's not just my anecdotal experience.
> one day the wiseguys in Google decided that everything should be extreme WHITE [1].
Just to note they have since added native dark mode and the native ability to automatically convert sites you browse to into a dark theme. I'm hoping FF adds the latter natively but in the meantime it's doable via extensions so it's not as big a deal as finishing the Firefox Preview rewrite for Android.
Nope, but it doesn't need to be protected from criticism for coming dead last either.
Again, workflow and theming are completely irrelevant to anything I mentioned. "hot pile of garbage __in terms of performance, power usage, and scrolling__." (emphasis added). You're reading "someone said something bad about FF, I've got to say how it's better than Chrome!" instead of what was said. I then provided hard data to validate it's not just my anecdotal experience.
> one day the wiseguys in Google decided that everything should be extreme WHITE [1].
Just to note they have since added native dark mode and the native ability to automatically convert sites you browse to into a dark theme. I'm hoping FF adds the latter natively but in the meantime it's doable via extensions so it's not as big a deal as finishing the Firefox Preview rewrite for Android.
> "hot pile of garbage __in terms of performance, power usage, and scrolling__."
Thing is, it is not. On Chrome I regularly had unresponsive pages that once cleared led to all tabs being closed, and it happened more often when I had more tabs open, the critical number is 10-12. Once you are over that limit, expect "App stopped responding" modal. On Firefox, I currently have 36 open tabs, and it works without any slowdowns.
In Chrome, if start typing something in a webpage, open another page to do some fact-checking, go back to the first page, and see all my typed text gone. On Firefox, I do this all the time, open different apps, and all my tabs and their contents are safe (with the exception of private tabs, sadly).
Power usage is about the same, scrolling is also fast enough for me (I am aware it does render fonts in lo-res while scrolling, but I only learned about this in an online discussion about 'horrible font rendering', never noticing it myself in more than 6 months of usage at the time.
So no, I don't agree with your assessment of Firefox as a "hot pile of garbage". I think it is a great mobile browser, and I think it will get even better. YMMV, of course, but I'm very happy with Firefox and have no plans of going back.
Thing is, it is not. On Chrome I regularly had unresponsive pages that once cleared led to all tabs being closed, and it happened more often when I had more tabs open, the critical number is 10-12. Once you are over that limit, expect "App stopped responding" modal. On Firefox, I currently have 36 open tabs, and it works without any slowdowns.
In Chrome, if start typing something in a webpage, open another page to do some fact-checking, go back to the first page, and see all my typed text gone. On Firefox, I do this all the time, open different apps, and all my tabs and their contents are safe (with the exception of private tabs, sadly).
Power usage is about the same, scrolling is also fast enough for me (I am aware it does render fonts in lo-res while scrolling, but I only learned about this in an online discussion about 'horrible font rendering', never noticing it myself in more than 6 months of usage at the time.
So no, I don't agree with your assessment of Firefox as a "hot pile of garbage". I think it is a great mobile browser, and I think it will get even better. YMMV, of course, but I'm very happy with Firefox and have no plans of going back.
To clarify, when I said"Even most Firefox communities agree FF on Android is hot pile of garbage in terms of performance, power usage, and scrolling." and provided independent quantitative comparisons & community discussions as example I wasn't implying anything about your particular experience with Chrome(???) and reasons you decided to use Firefox. When I claimed the Firefox Preview rewrite is primarily about fixing these above issues I'm not referring to whether or not you personally feel it's related to the performance of the existing version rather things like Firefox blog posts and related discussions around it say it is.
To reiterate: When I mention power/performance I'm referring to the benchmarks showing it's last not whether or not I personally think it feels fast and when I mention the Firefox communities common opinion I'm not referring to your personal experiences or whether or not you personally found Chrome worse in the same regard.
Also I'd like to point out once more something I've already pointed out: At no point have I said or Firefox on Android as a whole is a hot pile of garbage nor have I mentioned anything about Chrome being better/worse/relevant. Please stop saying I have and particularly please stop using cut off quotes to imply I did. It's not what I was talking about and, more importantly, it's not even the opinion I hold.
To reiterate: When I mention power/performance I'm referring to the benchmarks showing it's last not whether or not I personally think it feels fast and when I mention the Firefox communities common opinion I'm not referring to your personal experiences or whether or not you personally found Chrome worse in the same regard.
Also I'd like to point out once more something I've already pointed out: At no point have I said or Firefox on Android as a whole is a hot pile of garbage nor have I mentioned anything about Chrome being better/worse/relevant. Please stop saying I have and particularly please stop using cut off quotes to imply I did. It's not what I was talking about and, more importantly, it's not even the opinion I hold.
For non-technical people, this is not surprising, as Google shoves it down your throat when you go to their website(s).
For technical folks, I really don't understand it - I'm not a web developer, so my use case might be different, but I really don't see what exactly people are missing. I've never had issues with browser performance (I use FF on mac, Windows, Linux, and (slow out of the box) development Linux VMs).
People here usually complain about performance, but how does one even objectively measure that? Do people's browsers freeze up? Do websites load noticeably slower?
This is a genuine question - not just a rant.
As a side node, syncing to your own server is a huge feature for me - as far as I'm aware, Chrome can't do that. That + DDG as default search engine is an open alternative to Google's/Chrome's monopoly, which in my opinion should take precedence over pure convenience for the audience of HN.
For technical folks, I really don't understand it - I'm not a web developer, so my use case might be different, but I really don't see what exactly people are missing. I've never had issues with browser performance (I use FF on mac, Windows, Linux, and (slow out of the box) development Linux VMs).
People here usually complain about performance, but how does one even objectively measure that? Do people's browsers freeze up? Do websites load noticeably slower?
This is a genuine question - not just a rant.
As a side node, syncing to your own server is a huge feature for me - as far as I'm aware, Chrome can't do that. That + DDG as default search engine is an open alternative to Google's/Chrome's monopoly, which in my opinion should take precedence over pure convenience for the audience of HN.
Anything but Safari takes an hour or two off my laptop's battery life and harms systemwide performance more than Safari does. Yes, still. I open FF or Chrome for specific purposes then close them as fast as I can. It's bad enough that I have Electron running amok on my system—all the more important that my actual web browser respect power use, memory, and processor cycles.
Maybe give Firefox 70 a try when it comes out next week? They've redone animation rendering on macOS to do it the same way Safari does, which should increase performance and reduce battery consumption.
Last I saw the favorable comparison for the upcoming performance improvements was "now uses as little battery and performs as well as Chrome"... so I'll try it—I mean I do use it pretty often anyway in short bursts—but there's a ways between that and Safari.
[EDIT] to be clear, I'm rooting for them. I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix. And Firebird. Back then I evangelized it, hard. I've not loved it since somewhere in the 2.x range, but I wish I could again. It's just, you know, been a while.
[EDIT] to be clear, I'm rooting for them. I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix. And Firebird. Back then I evangelized it, hard. I've not loved it since somewhere in the 2.x range, but I wish I could again. It's just, you know, been a while.
Unpopular opinion: as a "technical" person, Mozilla and Firefox's behavior over the last few years really should raise red flags in the technical community. The various so-called "experiments" with advertising and other features might have helped with the bottom line, but it erodes confidence at a time where people are more conscious of privacy-related matters. Even the open source advocates should consider that huge parts of Pocket are still closed source
[1] https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/31/mozilla-ad-on-firefoxs-ne...
[2] https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/06/mozilla-to-launch-firefox-...
[3] https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-...
[4] https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/
[5] https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75
[1] https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/31/mozilla-ad-on-firefoxs-ne...
[2] https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/06/mozilla-to-launch-firefox-...
[3] https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-...
[4] https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/
[5] https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75
I've switched from Chromium to Firefox on Ubuntu. Performance has been a bit worse with regards to rendering, tab switching etc. The scrolling isn't as smooth in Firefox. Otoh, Firefox stays responsive even if one page runs a lot of scripts; it freezes the tab, not the browser (as Chromium does).
It's not necessarily an issue for me, I won't switch back because of it, and I like Firefox for development, though the Chromium dev tools are still a bit better in some regards, but yeah, lower performance has been noticeable for me.
I don't remember what made me switch on Desktop, but I had switched on android before, simply because the internet was unusable on Chrome with ads.
It's not necessarily an issue for me, I won't switch back because of it, and I like Firefox for development, though the Chromium dev tools are still a bit better in some regards, but yeah, lower performance has been noticeable for me.
I don't remember what made me switch on Desktop, but I had switched on android before, simply because the internet was unusable on Chrome with ads.
For me, firefox's touchpad scrolling is much smoother than chromium's on linux.
Also, firefox implements kinetic touchpad scrolling on linux, whereas chromium still does not (this is a huge missing feature IMO)
Also, firefox implements kinetic touchpad scrolling on linux, whereas chromium still does not (this is a huge missing feature IMO)
I've noticed on MacOS (on two MBPs) that Firefox 69 (with ublock origin as only plugin) is noticeably slower to render / lay out sites and maybe download content than Chrome (with ublock origin as only plugin) on same machines. Battery life is noticeably worse as well compared to Chrome.
I've switched though to using Firefox despite the above on MacOS at least.
On Linux however, Firefox seems quite a bit worse than Firefox to the extent that it's approaching "painful" levels to use it - scrolling is very laggy (messed around with hardware accel, drivers, etc), downloading / rendering is noticeably slower, etc. (Same setup of only plugin in each browser on Linux being ublock origin). Even starting it seems much slower (with cold FS caches). This is on several Linux machines, and seems pretty universal in my experience.
At work, we have to use the internet through a VDI terminal (main network is completely segregated from internet), and I've noticed that with this setup, Firefox is even slower than my "native" Linux comparisons. Also, as I can see the network traffic between the VDI and my machine, I've also noticed that a single blank page window in Firefox keeps sending updates (300KB/sec, like it's refreshing constantly in an event loop or something), whilst a blank page window in Chrome has no updates, which seems a bit weird to me, and indicates something's non-optimal in Firefox, as I don't see why a blank page should cause firefox to apparently re-render stuff...
I've switched though to using Firefox despite the above on MacOS at least.
On Linux however, Firefox seems quite a bit worse than Firefox to the extent that it's approaching "painful" levels to use it - scrolling is very laggy (messed around with hardware accel, drivers, etc), downloading / rendering is noticeably slower, etc. (Same setup of only plugin in each browser on Linux being ublock origin). Even starting it seems much slower (with cold FS caches). This is on several Linux machines, and seems pretty universal in my experience.
At work, we have to use the internet through a VDI terminal (main network is completely segregated from internet), and I've noticed that with this setup, Firefox is even slower than my "native" Linux comparisons. Also, as I can see the network traffic between the VDI and my machine, I've also noticed that a single blank page window in Firefox keeps sending updates (300KB/sec, like it's refreshing constantly in an event loop or something), whilst a blank page window in Chrome has no updates, which seems a bit weird to me, and indicates something's non-optimal in Firefox, as I don't see why a blank page should cause firefox to apparently re-render stuff...
Yeah I do not exactly understand why FF is not the preferred browser of developers either. :shrug emoji:
I can't speak for others, but
>[...] which in my opinion should take precedence over pure convenience for the audience of HN.
is a no from me. Maybe I've done tech too long, but I don't feel obliged to ditch convenience for nerdcred or the feeling of authenticity or whatever your frame is. Several years ago, FF was slower -talking margins of magnitude- for me, both on windows and linux-machines. Maybe it was due to addons and whatnot, but I migrated to Chrome, and, in simple words, had no UX-related reason to switch back ever since. Chrome does what I want it to do, and I cba to switch back to FF unless I'll actually start seeing ads again. And I'm not a webdev either, for that matter.
>[...] which in my opinion should take precedence over pure convenience for the audience of HN.
is a no from me. Maybe I've done tech too long, but I don't feel obliged to ditch convenience for nerdcred or the feeling of authenticity or whatever your frame is. Several years ago, FF was slower -talking margins of magnitude- for me, both on windows and linux-machines. Maybe it was due to addons and whatnot, but I migrated to Chrome, and, in simple words, had no UX-related reason to switch back ever since. Chrome does what I want it to do, and I cba to switch back to FF unless I'll actually start seeing ads again. And I'm not a webdev either, for that matter.
> I don't feel obliged to ditch convenience for nerdcred or the feeling of authenticity or whatever your frame is.
That's an awfully dismissive way of putting it given the prevailing topic of this thread: privacy. Firefox isn't perfect in that regard, but I trust Mozilla a hell of a lot more than I trust Google.
Not to mention I don't want Google dictating how the web works through sheer force of market share. It's like nobody remembers the 90s and IE anymore. Do we really want a repeat of that?
Obviously there's a line to be drawn: when "convenience" turns into "browsing is actually a difficult chore because FF has bugs X, Y, Z", then sure, it's of course understandable that you'd ditch FF for an alternative. But I don't think that experience should be common.
That's an awfully dismissive way of putting it given the prevailing topic of this thread: privacy. Firefox isn't perfect in that regard, but I trust Mozilla a hell of a lot more than I trust Google.
Not to mention I don't want Google dictating how the web works through sheer force of market share. It's like nobody remembers the 90s and IE anymore. Do we really want a repeat of that?
Obviously there's a line to be drawn: when "convenience" turns into "browsing is actually a difficult chore because FF has bugs X, Y, Z", then sure, it's of course understandable that you'd ditch FF for an alternative. But I don't think that experience should be common.
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Mozilla in the last few years surrounding so-called "experiments" makes Google look like the more trustworthy actor wrt browser components. At least Google never called ads "user-enhancing"
[1] https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504
[1] https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504
When you say "orders of magnitude" slower, are you referring to specific measurements you made, or are you just saying that Firefox seemed a lot slower?
Quite an interesting disparity across markets. In Germany, Firefox's desktop marketshare is above 25%. Poland, 20%. France, 16%, Spain 11%, UK and US 8%.
I picked those examples as a mix of language markets, the two largest non-English speaking EU countries and an East/West EU comparison.
What links Germany and Poland in Firefox adoption on desktop?
I picked those examples as a mix of language markets, the two largest non-English speaking EU countries and an East/West EU comparison.
What links Germany and Poland in Firefox adoption on desktop?
I’d also like to mention that Chrome only overtook FF 2017 (compared to 2014 in the US) here in Germany.
I suspect Germany and France are much more concerned about privacy
at least to me, that graph shows exactly why we need to start using Firefox and not hand the entire web to Google & Chrome. That's frightening to see. I'm old enough to remember the "optimized for IE" buttons everywhere.
Interesting to see that Safari has risen and is still slowly rising, even with no Windows version anymore.
Interesting to see that Safari has risen and is still slowly rising, even with no Windows version anymore.
Unfortunately the majority of users don't know and/or care about the differences between browsers. Firefox to them is just a weird looking Chrome.
There's an entire generation of internet users that _only_ know Chrome. I am a huge Firefox fan and use it myself, but trying to convince others to switch is a futile in my experience. Those who understand or care about the benefits are either already using it or some other Chrome alternative, everyone else doesn't want to be bothered.
At this point I don't know it will take to de-throne Chrome. As much as I want to see Mozilla succeed, I don't know if it will be Firefox. I'm not sure what else they can do to make it enticing to the general populous. I just hope they don't give up and keep pumping out wonderful features.
There's an entire generation of internet users that _only_ know Chrome. I am a huge Firefox fan and use it myself, but trying to convince others to switch is a futile in my experience. Those who understand or care about the benefits are either already using it or some other Chrome alternative, everyone else doesn't want to be bothered.
At this point I don't know it will take to de-throne Chrome. As much as I want to see Mozilla succeed, I don't know if it will be Firefox. I'm not sure what else they can do to make it enticing to the general populous. I just hope they don't give up and keep pumping out wonderful features.
You know what would be a great comparison? The amount of money in/out of the Mozilla foundation way back in their start when they had an equal 10% market share against IE6 (probably around 2003 or 2004?); along with breakdowns on what they spent it on.
They're kinda in the same boat with Chrome that they were with Microsoft/IE way back in the day, but the composition of the company and user base has changed a lot!
They're kinda in the same boat with Chrome that they were with Microsoft/IE way back in the day, but the composition of the company and user base has changed a lot!
I have really tried to love the new Firefox builds on desktop due to the containers.
The performance is not stellar on OS X and plugin support is tiny by comparison so I find myself drifting back to Chrome.
The performance is not stellar on OS X and plugin support is tiny by comparison so I find myself drifting back to Chrome.
> The performance is not stellar on OS X and plugin support is tiny by comparison so I find myself drifting back to Chrome.
Are you saying that Firefox has less addons than Safari? Is that even possible with the restrictions on Safari browser (ads blocking)?
Are you saying that Firefox has less addons than Safari? Is that even possible with the restrictions on Safari browser (ads blocking)?
I’m assuming that they’re comparing Firefox to Chrome.
Firefox 70 is suppose to have a big performance boost on Mac.
Firefox 70 will use Core Animation on Macs for graphics rendering, just like Chrome and Safari. This will vastly improve low energy consumption/battery life, but I haven't heard anything about general UI performance?
Anyway, it's supposed to be out next week [1] :)
[1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar
Anyway, it's supposed to be out next week [1] :)
[1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar
I'm on Firefox Nightly, and performance has been noticably better in the past several months.
Previously Firefox was barely usable for anything with animation on OSX. They've been making steady (if slow) progress for the past year or so, now it's subjectively on-par with Chrome and Safari for me.
Previously Firefox was barely usable for anything with animation on OSX. They've been making steady (if slow) progress for the past year or so, now it's subjectively on-par with Chrome and Safari for me.
Does this mean that watching video via firefox on OSX will no longer make my machine heat like crazy?
Firefox performance has been a joke on mac for years with "fixes" supposedly happening every few months but it's still horrible. I'll believe it when I see it.
Interestingly, that site is completely blocked by default on my browser. I think 3 of the top recommended extensions for Firefox block it (uBlock Origin, uMatrix, and NoScript).
I imagine this impacts their data.
I imagine this impacts their data.
I wonder if statcounter is getting tracking information from Firefox users when Firefox ships with content blocking to protect privacy. I think it's on my by default now.
Makes me wonder if the pro Firefox and Anti Google threads are part of the marketing ...
um, did anyone else notice that Mozilla has 100 people in their marketing department?
What do they all do?
What do they all do?
No idea about Mozilla but it's a large enough organization and user base that those 100 people could be working on:
- Acquisition: Managing channels like search and social ads to grow the user base, upsell browser usage across devices, etc.
- Branding: Working on display and out of home media that reinforces values like privacy and security with how people think of Mozilla
- Partnerships: Working with other tech companies to co-promote or integrate directly (like Ubuntu, etc.)
- Product: Writing release copy, blogposts, etc for new feature launches, announcements, etc. and ensuring they highlight what users want
- Events: Having a presence at major tech events to showcase new product features, reinforcing the brand, making users happy, etc.
- PR: Working with media companies to share assets, messaging, and updates on releases, announcements, etc. to make sure referral moments (like this very article) are favorable
- Acquisition: Managing channels like search and social ads to grow the user base, upsell browser usage across devices, etc.
- Branding: Working on display and out of home media that reinforces values like privacy and security with how people think of Mozilla
- Partnerships: Working with other tech companies to co-promote or integrate directly (like Ubuntu, etc.)
- Product: Writing release copy, blogposts, etc for new feature launches, announcements, etc. and ensuring they highlight what users want
- Events: Having a presence at major tech events to showcase new product features, reinforcing the brand, making users happy, etc.
- PR: Working with media companies to share assets, messaging, and updates on releases, announcements, etc. to make sure referral moments (like this very article) are favorable
That's one marketing person per 3 million active users.
How many of those active users can reasonably be claimed to have initiated their relationship with Firefox as consequence of that 100 person marketing team, rather than, say, word of mouth in the tech community?
I don't think I've ever seen an ad for firefox.
I don't think I've ever seen an ad for firefox.
There have been a few Firefox commercials on cable television that aired during season 3 of Mr. Robot.
Maybe I'm just out of touch, but what target demo is still watching cable television instead of watching TV shows online? The last time I saw people sitting around a television (with a television station on it), I was visiting a nursing home.
Their target market is internet users who can install a browser. This include markets outside of yourself and nursing homes, and includes the audience of Mr Robot.
[deleted]
I was also shocked to read they spend between $20-100 million in advertising!
Which that much money, couldn’t they just use the majority of advertisement budget to pay a team of great developers for decades?
Which that much money, couldn’t they just use the majority of advertisement budget to pay a team of great developers for decades?
They've already been paying a team of great developers for decades.
OK, they could pay some more great developers, but as a developer myself, even I agree that 100% development 0% marketing is not the ideal resource allocation.
OK, they could pay some more great developers, but as a developer myself, even I agree that 100% development 0% marketing is not the ideal resource allocation.
Sure, but what's the point, if no one uses your browser? Marketing is a necessary evil.
In this case, with Mozilla Corporation as well as the budget mainly coming from google instead of user donations, you have a point. They have a financial interest in higher user numbers. Your statement is however not universally true. If you have a large enough userbase to finance development, or are an open source project, as a non-profit growth is not something you need to spend money on. That really only matters if you have a profit interest. Differently put, you dont need everyone to use your software, it is enough that its available for people who need it. With more growth you get a litany of new problem with having to do something with the incoming money as a non profit. That often means feature bloat, while, "keep it simple stupid" would have led to a better solution. Not to mention adding features the new userbase requests. In the worst case you end up with a completely different product which for many of the old userbase and volunteers is just as bad as if the project was canceled altogether.
All of this not to mention that, while it makes sense for Firefox, the thought that my donation to develop Firefox ended up in some marketing budget irks me deep down.
All of this not to mention that, while it makes sense for Firefox, the thought that my donation to develop Firefox ended up in some marketing budget irks me deep down.
Whatever they do it’s not working. FF market share has been going down for years.
Mozilla’s marketing budget is between $20 million and $100 million, said Kaykas-Wolff, adding that “it varies depending upon the different programs we’re running.” Per Kantar, which doesn’t track spending on social channels, Mozilla spent $8.2 million in 2018. The budget is split with 50% focused on North America and 50% focused on the rest of the world.
Mozilla’s pivot away from Facebook followed the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Now, the majority of the company’s digital spending goes to Google properties — Mozilla’s Firefox competes with Google’s Chrome — as a part of its digital acquisition strategy. According to Netshare, as previously reported by Digiday, Firefox’s market share is 9.3% of global monthly on desktop; meanwhile, Google Chrome’s is 66%. Aside from Cambridge Analytica, it’s unclear why Mozilla is fine with Google’s data practices but not Facebook’s as the company did not immediately respond to a request for clarification. The rest of the digital budget goes directly to publishers.
Mozilla’s pivot away from Facebook followed the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Now, the majority of the company’s digital spending goes to Google properties — Mozilla’s Firefox competes with Google’s Chrome — as a part of its digital acquisition strategy. According to Netshare, as previously reported by Digiday, Firefox’s market share is 9.3% of global monthly on desktop; meanwhile, Google Chrome’s is 66%. Aside from Cambridge Analytica, it’s unclear why Mozilla is fine with Google’s data practices but not Facebook’s as the company did not immediately respond to a request for clarification. The rest of the digital budget goes directly to publishers.
Keyword that I like was PRIVACY
It's meaning is fading today too much.
It's meaning is fading today too much.
Fundamentally the platform (facebook, google, etc) the majority of folks use to connect with be the best one to market products and services on.
The issue is that these platforms change over time and across generations.
In short, as firms, markets, and societies change so will effective marketing strategies.
We can still bicker about whether or not FB has reached its high watermark. It looks like it has for Firefox users though.
The issue is that these platforms change over time and across generations.
In short, as firms, markets, and societies change so will effective marketing strategies.
We can still bicker about whether or not FB has reached its high watermark. It looks like it has for Firefox users though.
Does Google allow politicians to lie on their advertising platform like Facebook? Genuinely asking, as it's a stated policy of Facebook but I haven't heard or seen analysis comparing Google's ad network. I realize this decision by Mozilla was based on a previous Facebook blunder.
I think Mozilla needs to re-think their whole marketing approach yesterday. A few remarks:
- 50% US / 50% "rest of the world"? Nah. There's little to no chance to make a strong dent in the US, home of Chrome and Apple and Microsoft etc. Pivot to 99% "rest of the world" and switch to my other point entirely for the US. There's much more need, reason and room for Mozilla to grow internationally.
- forget about ad spending, whether Google or TV, it just doesn't suit Mozilla's image, mission, product, nor customers. What we want is to attract the core deciders, from a grassroot kinda move, which spreads to peers, circles, and grows up, towards the corporate. What we want is the 'elite' or 'nerdy' segment even if we'll never call it that. The 1% that make a community thrive because they're so quintessential to tech in general, locally in their projects / cities / worlds. The few that are blessed with speech and some social presence, aura, authority. The ones others follow and listen to for 'tech stuff'.
So move worldwide now, and spend almost exclusively on these people. Influencers, media, awareness, image, mission — maybe even some communities living on forums could become advocates. Coordinate locally through bigger advocates to form an army of legions.
Maybe find a big thing, like "we'll be in space for humans day 1 to assist expansion" — moon, mars, satellites, whatever rocks the boat for the next decade (think really big, above yearly trends, give a face to a "superior" company). (I'm a space geek, perhaps this is just my taste)
Working with people directly, podcasters and youtubers gitlabers and whatnot, hordes of them, is a more tedious, longer approach, but as well a more long-term and much more engaging way to reach people. The money paid in sponsorship goes directly to 'building the world' (these people are evangelizers of principles and values, they're teachers, they're coaches, they play a valuable role in society), not some indirect major ad platform engrossing. It fuels communities that become grateful, with good reason, for marketing money. It becomes "clean" money by virtue of being used for something good.
- Don't dictate the message, let your 'influencers' feedback your way to browser supremacy, publicly so; make it a topic not a mandate — this is not just a 'strategy', it's a "why" materialized, a life path, a superior way to accomplish the mission. It's immortality through the software we give now and leave after us. Pivot to meet that, to meet your dearest users needs and wants. That's how you beat the faceless Google Chrome, imho. By giving the browser back to the people, by being a positive company not in some abstract "PR-humanitarian" way (although that's good!) but in a more direct-to-user way. By serving the worthy movements and people you find in this world. Grassroots seeding. Think: for a browser company, connecting people and stuff is pretty much what we do. Let's show the world how much good we can do when there's a whole company behind that!
It'll take 10 years. There's no "too late" — until someone else does it, but that's also considered a win for Mozilla in that regard. By 2030, it can be done. And by virtue of being a dominant OSS, it has a staying power far greater than its rivals.
It's possible, Mozilla. This is just one rough draft, maybe not the one, but just to say: reinvent that sh--.
- 50% US / 50% "rest of the world"? Nah. There's little to no chance to make a strong dent in the US, home of Chrome and Apple and Microsoft etc. Pivot to 99% "rest of the world" and switch to my other point entirely for the US. There's much more need, reason and room for Mozilla to grow internationally.
- forget about ad spending, whether Google or TV, it just doesn't suit Mozilla's image, mission, product, nor customers. What we want is to attract the core deciders, from a grassroot kinda move, which spreads to peers, circles, and grows up, towards the corporate. What we want is the 'elite' or 'nerdy' segment even if we'll never call it that. The 1% that make a community thrive because they're so quintessential to tech in general, locally in their projects / cities / worlds. The few that are blessed with speech and some social presence, aura, authority. The ones others follow and listen to for 'tech stuff'.
So move worldwide now, and spend almost exclusively on these people. Influencers, media, awareness, image, mission — maybe even some communities living on forums could become advocates. Coordinate locally through bigger advocates to form an army of legions.
Maybe find a big thing, like "we'll be in space for humans day 1 to assist expansion" — moon, mars, satellites, whatever rocks the boat for the next decade (think really big, above yearly trends, give a face to a "superior" company). (I'm a space geek, perhaps this is just my taste)
Working with people directly, podcasters and youtubers gitlabers and whatnot, hordes of them, is a more tedious, longer approach, but as well a more long-term and much more engaging way to reach people. The money paid in sponsorship goes directly to 'building the world' (these people are evangelizers of principles and values, they're teachers, they're coaches, they play a valuable role in society), not some indirect major ad platform engrossing. It fuels communities that become grateful, with good reason, for marketing money. It becomes "clean" money by virtue of being used for something good.
- Don't dictate the message, let your 'influencers' feedback your way to browser supremacy, publicly so; make it a topic not a mandate — this is not just a 'strategy', it's a "why" materialized, a life path, a superior way to accomplish the mission. It's immortality through the software we give now and leave after us. Pivot to meet that, to meet your dearest users needs and wants. That's how you beat the faceless Google Chrome, imho. By giving the browser back to the people, by being a positive company not in some abstract "PR-humanitarian" way (although that's good!) but in a more direct-to-user way. By serving the worthy movements and people you find in this world. Grassroots seeding. Think: for a browser company, connecting people and stuff is pretty much what we do. Let's show the world how much good we can do when there's a whole company behind that!
It'll take 10 years. There's no "too late" — until someone else does it, but that's also considered a win for Mozilla in that regard. By 2030, it can be done. And by virtue of being a dominant OSS, it has a staying power far greater than its rivals.
It's possible, Mozilla. This is just one rough draft, maybe not the one, but just to say: reinvent that sh--.
Everyone likes to say they don't use Facebook, but they do. Or at least 10 people they know do.
Local businesses use Facebook relentlessly because, lots of times, it actually works to get people in the door or calling your number. Small businesses almost have to use its ad platform (in my opinion). I don't think local businesses can afford to look away from a top performer like this.
When I ran an escape room business, my fill-rate on weekends was typically dependent on whether or not I was spending money on Facebook. Google ads were second. Anything else barely had any ROI. Well - in the first few months of running the business, the local newspaper actually brought in some people, but nothing compared to my longer ad runs on Facebook.
I feel like this is a "you don't need Facebook" chant, but I feel that's not true for all industries, and I hope the take-away here is that maybe a huge online business with a giant ad budget can find other means, but if you are a small local business with $300 a month for marketing, I personally believe that you kind-of need Facebook.